ToriesPolishBoy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

constitution limiting government? Both the Articles of Confederation and our modern Constitution did and do this. Someone, please correct me if I'm babbling statist propaganda. Lol.

ToriesPolishBoy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

In this new Constitution, we have the concepts like the clock-work universe and checks/balances. All of which limit the size of the three branches of our government. This is all detailed in the Constitution. I mean, they did leave little wiggle room, certainly allowing our federal government to grow to the size with the branches have evolved. However, our government was designed to be inefficient and to prevent one group from holding complete authority . How is this not an example of a...

ToriesPolishBoy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Wait a minute? I mean, I'm fairly ignorant of political theory, but doesn't our Constitution limit government. Anyone step in at anytime if I have this wrong. One of the driving forces behind the Founders was to limit the size of a centralized government. We had the Articles of Confederation first which gave the states tons of power and rendered the central government weak. Then came along the Philadelphia Convention of 1984 (I think) and poof...we have the Constituion we know and love today

McTaggStar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Great video and great argument, Jerico. Regardless of the fact that I have no particular stance in political philosophy at the moment, there is no denying that you made a wonder argument, one that will be very difficult to dispute.

1noen1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The difference is that I accept the reality that force plays in the world and that in order to have certain things I have to pay for them. That payment sometimes comes as the fact that others have more power or more that I have duties and obligations. Taxes (and all that comes with that) are the price we pay for civilization.

vteam02 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Its ok now. I understand your position more clearly.

1noen1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You're still going on about this? -- The people of the US constitute the legal entity known as the US. So yes, the US has legal title to all it's lands a territories. Nor do you need to get consent from every single person in a democracy in order for the state to conduct legal business. It is sufficient that you are represented and can vote. You can always leave if you don't like it. The US acquired much of it's land through legal treaties made with the natives. But sadly, also through conquest

vteam02 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The US did not homestead the land, the people did. The US did not receive consent from everyone, hence forced some homesteaders to "consent." Which invalidates the contract. This doesn't even take into account the people who were here before who were forced out, which should be a blow in of itself.

1noen1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

No, they, like you, gave their consent by remaining within the territories of the US which was a legal state and had the right to tax it's citizens through it's elected representatives. Taxation is a legal instrument and if you don't like it your options are to lobby the gov, vote or run for office for it's repeal. Neither you nor they have the right to rebel but if you do you'd damn well better make sure you win. The state has the moral right to enforce it's contracts including taxation.

vteam02 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

well not none none. some did not consent, is a better phrase